Be satisfied
The Pursuit of Constant Pleasure.
I know. You're all going to accuse me of being an Epicurean (and thus misunderstanding Epicurus) or a hedonist (and simply misunderstanding me).
Today's ethical issue brings us back to the Greek proverb I mentioned a couple of days ago – μηδὲν ἄγαν "nothing in excess". In other words, the happiest state is one where we're satisfied. Wanting more makes us unhappy, although this seems to condemn people who don't have enough to say stupid things such as "At least we have each other". Similarly, an excess of pleasure is merely a temporary state which, again, leaves us wanting more.
Am I generally satisfied? Does the Pope shit in the woods? Or bears? (I'm not sure which is the right answer.) I'm more satisfied than I was a few years ago, but still less satisfied than I might be. My expectations of life are still a long way from being fulfilled. But I'm used to being in a situation where my desires are never going to be fulfilled in a month of Sundays, and thus I don't let it bother me. There are many things I might like but to which I never give a second thought (or a first one). There are a few things I would like, but I know that they're never going to happen, and pragmatism shepherds them away.
If I'm being pragmatic, is that the same as being satisfied, though? Or is pragmatism merely an excuse for remaining unsatisfied? No, because I can think of certain things which I might want, but which would not provide long-term satisfaction. On the other hand, I can think of one thing that I'd definitely like, which would provide me with long-term satisfaction, but which in practical terms I know is never going to happen. I dwell on it occasionally, but try not to let it bother me too much.
I don't, however, think it's possible to be satisfied in all things because satisfaction in one thing might lead to dissatisfaction in another. In other words, you strive for an optimal situation rather than an unlikely ideal.
I know. You're all going to accuse me of being an Epicurean (and thus misunderstanding Epicurus) or a hedonist (and simply misunderstanding me).
Today's ethical issue brings us back to the Greek proverb I mentioned a couple of days ago – μηδὲν ἄγαν "nothing in excess". In other words, the happiest state is one where we're satisfied. Wanting more makes us unhappy, although this seems to condemn people who don't have enough to say stupid things such as "At least we have each other". Similarly, an excess of pleasure is merely a temporary state which, again, leaves us wanting more.
Am I generally satisfied? Does the Pope shit in the woods? Or bears? (I'm not sure which is the right answer.) I'm more satisfied than I was a few years ago, but still less satisfied than I might be. My expectations of life are still a long way from being fulfilled. But I'm used to being in a situation where my desires are never going to be fulfilled in a month of Sundays, and thus I don't let it bother me. There are many things I might like but to which I never give a second thought (or a first one). There are a few things I would like, but I know that they're never going to happen, and pragmatism shepherds them away.
If I'm being pragmatic, is that the same as being satisfied, though? Or is pragmatism merely an excuse for remaining unsatisfied? No, because I can think of certain things which I might want, but which would not provide long-term satisfaction. On the other hand, I can think of one thing that I'd definitely like, which would provide me with long-term satisfaction, but which in practical terms I know is never going to happen. I dwell on it occasionally, but try not to let it bother me too much.
I don't, however, think it's possible to be satisfied in all things because satisfaction in one thing might lead to dissatisfaction in another. In other words, you strive for an optimal situation rather than an unlikely ideal.
Comments